"Cheapshot"

[rumncoke]

I failed to see the attempt to use the arms .

The other factor would that the intention was to hit the player because he jumped into Murray
A jump would be acceptable if he had been going for a charge down in which case the arms would have been raised .

Thus in my opinion the intention was to hit and not to tackle or charge down and given the intention and execution worthy of a yellow but the call/ guidance should have been made by the TMO not the ref.

Then there is Farrell's reaction and assumption the Penalty is for a no arm hit and not the late, which was the reason the penalty was given where the ball landed not were the hit took place


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Russ]

Very first one on this - http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/rugby-union/26316464

He sees the ball has gone and sticks his shoulder in

Conclusion Gatland

[Neil F]

Farrell's behaviour after the incident was embarrassing. That is the only issue I have with the situation.

In terms of what happened; it was never a yellow card. A penalty was the right decision. I don't think it requires a debate. The tackle wasn't high; it was (slightly) late (although from my view, commitment to the tackle had been made before Murray cleared the ball) and the "attempt" to wrap was poor. Penalty. Simple as that.

As I said after the Wales game, though, the wording of the relevant law creates confusion, here (and, presumably, informed Farrell's ill-informed retort to the referee). The law does not say that a player MUST wrap his opposite number; it says he MUST TRY to wrap his opposite number. As with Williams two weeks ago, one could argue that there appears to be an attempt to wrap that has failed. In that context, I fear those suggesting it should have been yellow are being a little over-zealous.

The wrapping relates to a tackle - since the ball was clear, it was a charge, not a tackle. Other than as an indicator of intention/severity, is the tackle law relevant?

Fair enough, BR - I had based my earlier post on what I remember Joubert saying. I hadn't realised he'd allowed the penalty to be taken from where the ball landed. I was watching in some hovel in Amsterdam and wasn't entirely in full possession of my faculties, so I think the mindslip can be forgiven.

So, actually, I think Joubert kind of made a hash of refereeing it - allowing the penalty to be taken from where the ball landed suggested he'd officiated under 10.4(o), in which case your assertion about (late) charging is correct.

In Joubert's discussion with Farrell and Robshaw, though, he said something like, "It's not okay to tackle without using your arms and your timing wasn't right." With such phrasing, I felt Joubert suggested he'd awarded it for a poor tackle, with the timing being a small, secondary concern. Farrell's ill-measured response ("I tried.") seems to suggest that the player interpreted it the same way. If the player had felt it was 10.4(o), I assume an equally ill-measured "It wasn't deliberate" would have been trotted out...

You are, therefore, correct but I'd still maintain that it wasn't a yellow card offence.

[BR]

Neil - my original assertion that the peno was given BECAUSE of a dangerous 'tackle' but given FOR a late 'tackle'. Agreed peno and admonishment.

[BaggyTrousers]

Very first one on this - http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/rugby-union/26316464

He sees the ball has gone and sticks his shoulder in

Conclusion Gatland

Absolutely Russ, 100%

Neil, pity you stopped short of Joubert's response to "I tried" , I can't remember the exact words but it was clearly dismissive in content & disbelieving in tone. Joubert had no doubt that it was late, the high element may be marginal but it was around Murray's shoulder/neck area & there was not any question of an attempt to use arms.

I also completely disagree that you are less likely to be injured by a shoulder charge than a complete "legal" late tackle it you understand the contradiction in terms therein.

BR, thanks for your interpretation, at best it is very kind to Farrell in my opinion. I believe his action was intended to injure/ take Murray out of the game. I further believe that had it not happened in the 1st minute that a yellow would probably have resulted. Much as I dislike him, Frenchie would not have turned away from the correct decision for that reason.

There you go, we are all entitled to our opinions, even if you guys are wrong.

EDIT: should have mentioned that Farrell's "previous" is pretty damning in that my interpretation of his intent is support by his being known for this type of stupid petulance.

[Neil F]

Baggy, the incident in question happened in the twenty-first minute, not the first...

The high element is certainly not marginal; the initial contact was about Murray's armpit and the final contact certainly not above the shoulders. The rest is open to debate. All I'll say is that if I was refereeing that game, I'd have made the same decision as Joubert: penalty and a talking to.

[BaggyTrousers]

Baggy, the incident in question happened in the twenty-first minute, not the first...

The high element is certainly not marginal; the initial contact was about Murray's armpit and the final contact certainly not above the shoulders. The rest is open to debate. All I'll say is that if I was refereeing that game, I'd have made the same decision as Joubert: penalty and a talking to.

Well Neil, you are right about the time anyway

[rumncoke]

neil

If you accept it was intentional

If you accept it is dangerous

Then it must be a yellow

I'm surprised nobody has yet to comment on Joubert's failure to penalise the cavalry charge / obstruction ie the maul that wasn't a maul my take would because ireland Had not mauled they would have been at liberty to tackle the man at the back carrying the ball if not then as soon as the English players moved forward they created a cavalry( charge) move and or were obstructing the Irish tackler.

I accept' charge' implies pace but cavalry don't always advance at pace.

[Russ]

I was outraged in the match thread at that

Joubert said he would not let Ireland back away

Surely, we can do as we please and England need to react

Joubert was a homer Warren Gatland

[BR]

Did he not say it had been a maul and remained a maul? Technically not a cavalry charge anyway, but you have to play to the ref's judgement.

[Shan]

Joubert is a very poor ref. He showed that in the World Cup. I don't think Joubert actually knows any of the laws of the game pertaining to scrums, rucks, mauls and offsides. If he does he keeps it well hidden. Maybe he does know them but ignores them if they may interfere with the home team winning.

Any decision he makes needs to be questioned. On the Farrell one I think a lot of refs would have given the yellow as it was dangerous. The fact that Farrell is a rotten nasty little f-cker shouldn't really come into it, though it does suggest his motives may not have been to execute a legal tackle.

[Neil F]

neil

If you accept it was intentional

If you accept it is dangerous

Then it must be a yellow

I'm surprised nobody has yet to comment on Joubert's failure to penalise the cavalry charge / obstruction ie the maul that wasn't a maul my take would because ireland Had not mauled they would have been at liberty to tackle the man at the back carrying the ball if not then as soon as the English players moved forward they created a cavalry( charge) move and or were obstructing the Irish tackler.

I accept' charge' implies pace but cavalry don't always advance at pace.

Rum; at no stage did I accept it was intentional. This is something that has, externally, been imposed on Farrell by posters on this forum. If I accepted that it as intentional, I would suggest at least a yellow. I do not, however, think that and no number of rewatches of the incident have made me consider it differently.

[Cap'n Grumpy]

Did he not say it had been a maul and remained a maul?

He did ... and the fact that there was still a green shirt lying on the floor in the middle of it meant he was correct .... something I failed to notice immediately at the time as I shouted at the box

[againstthehead]

I thought Joubert was excellent. If you start handing out yellows for everything and anything you may as well play soccer with Anthony Allen. It's a game for big boys.

The game was a cracking spectacle and the ref gave a bit of leeway to both sides.

[BR]

I thought Joubert was excellent.

I wouldn't have gone that far now!